Bush's legacy

President George Bush left office on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, with a dismal 34 per cent job-rating. His two terms in office have been tumultuous: the September 11, 2001 (9-11) attacks; the global war on terrorism; wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He leaves behind all his wars inconclusive, indeed, messy; and he could not catch Osama bin Laden, the 9-11 mastermind.

His waging of these wars also prompted a worldwide jump in Islamic extremism and violence. The US economy is left in the doldrums, affecting; the global economy in a similar way. The charges of illegal detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and harsh interrogation tactics and torture of prisoners in violation of international law, plus abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, further taint his presidency.

Most observers will undoubtedly view Bush's presidency as a dark chapter, a disaster, in US history. Still, he leaves office defending his tenure. As he told the nation in farewell speech: "I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind". He defended his presidency by touting: "America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil".

In a country like the US - highly conscious of its defence and security, particularly since World War II - attacks like 9-11 by non-state actors like al-Qaida would not occur easily under any President. So the claim that no further attacks like the 9-11 occurred during Bush's presidency does not add up.

Bush said he would leave office with a "great sense of accomplishment"; Vice-President Dick Cheney agreed. He has repeatedly suggested that history will judge his legacy, which he repeated in his closing press conference, saying: "I don't think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration till time has passed."

I subscribe to Huntington's Civilization Clash thesis. Huntington talks about the likely emergence of a multilateral clash between some eight civilisations. As a researcher of Islamic theology and history, I see the clash between Islam and the rest would stand out and overwhelm all others.

Huntington recounted ongoing conflicts between Islam with its neighbours all over the world; he most accurately retorted to the deniers of Islam-West conflict that "The relations between Islam and Christianity, both orthodox and Western, have often have been stormy. Each has been the other's Other".

"The twentieth century conflict between Liberal Democracy and Marxist-Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial historical phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflictual relations between Islam and Christianity", he added.

Islam's conflict with greater humanity is much wider in scope. Historically, Islam's relationship has been much more conflictual with the pre-Islamic peoples of all creeds, colour and race - Pagans, Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Animists - of Arabia, West Asia, Persia, Africa, Central and South-East Asia, and India. Many of these civilisations have completely succumbed to Islam: they have vanished. It is estimated that 300 million people perished by the sword of Islam, wielded since its birth in Arabia in the 7th century.

The civilisational clash is thus not new as far as Islam is concerned. Islam was born in Arabia as Islamic God Allah's master-plan, His politico-military tool, for creating a global Islamic state by making Muslims His "agent and inheritor of the earth" [Koran 6:165] and promising to make Islam victorious over all peoples and places [Koran 8:39]. Since then, Muslims have divided humanity into two houses, nations, civilisations: Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War).

Islam's mission has been to turn the non-Muslim Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam through Jihadi wars to realise Allah's ultimate goal of creating a global Islamic state. Islam's history reflects exactly that.

Muslims have achieved stunning success in this mission, but it remains unfinished. The ongoing conflicts of Islam - in Kashmir, Southern Thailand, Mindanao, the Balkans, Chechnya, and parts of Africa - are a part of Islam's continued civilisational clash with the rest of humanity. The Arab Islamic world's war against Israel, Muslim immigrants' conflict with the socio-political order of Western societies, the 9-11 attacks and the worldwide violence by numberless Islamist groups are a part of this age-old civilisational clash, too.

Remarkably, this clash has been sustained for 14 centuries since Islam's founding with an immense cost to innocent humanity. Bush's legacy, for me, should be judged by whether his administration - in the backdrop of spectacular 9-11 attacks - understood that the attacks were part of this age-old civilisational clash of Islam with the rest of humanity; and whether he took necessary measures to fight it.

His administration probably understood the conflict reasonably well, but failed to undertake decisive measures. This war of Islam against the rest of humanity can only be fought by exposing what the clash is all about. His touting the slogan that “Islam is peace” undermines the fight. His "war on terror" was a necessary component to neutralise the clash, but insufficient to kill it forever. Only by exposing Islam's design - based on its religious foundations - against the rest of humanity can this age-old menace to humanity be neutralised forever.

Understandably, the world today is held hostage by oil-producing Muslim states; this constraint prevents the taking of necessary actions, namely pointing to where truly lies the root of this global conflict. Working under this constraint, the Bush administration could, undoubtedly, do much less than what is needed to win this battle decisively. Under the circumstances, another President, Al Gore for example, in all likelihood, would have done much less.

This is a war that must be won against immense odds, fighting the huge ignorance of the global population. We have noticed the hypocrisy of Europeans: they overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for his naïve but goody-goody gestures towards Islam, while a great majority of them feel uncomfortable with Muslims living among them: their attitude towards Islam is hardening, becoming unfavourable.

In a world, not ready to take an oil-shock, creating an awareness of this unfavourable attitude towards Islam, will be crucial - probably the first step - towards defeating Islam's age-old war against humanity. Bush's war on terror, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - although failed to achieve short-term objectives - have undoubtedly played a central role in this vital "awareness creation" about Islam.

An unconditional clash against humanity, waged by few hundred impoverished Arabs under Prophet Mohammed's leadership, has sustained 14 centuries. And Islam has achieved much: today, Islam’s 1.4 billion volunteers push its civilisational clash forwards in one capacity or another. It shouldn't be difficult to understand the kind of vitality and resilience, Islam exudes into this battle.

It is not difficult either to understand the difficultly, the odds, that global non-Muslim humanity faces in this battle against such a staggering army of volunteers. So much of the world's vital resources are on Islam's side today, while its opponents are handicapped by restraints like international law and human rights, and so on, for which Islamists have nothing but contempt.

For a keen observer of Islamic history, who understands its theological foundations and cares for the immense sufferings it has caused to humanity, attempt at winning this battle decisively is much more noble than Bush administration's lapses in upholding international laws and the human rights of terrorists, who are hell-bent on, and take gleeful joy in, causing mass-murder of innocent men, women and children, inspired by a demented theological doctrine.

Of the reformed, low-risk terrorists released from Guantanamo, 61 of them have returned to the Jihadi trail for the mass-killing of innocent people. Harsher tactics may be essential to tackle this dreaded breed of mass-murderers, who deem dying in the hands of their perceived enemies most desirable, a martyrdom, which lands them in paradise.

It is a battle either side can win from here. Given the circumstances, the Bush administration made a reasonable attempt at neutralising this dreaded enemy. This battle, lasting 14 centuries, cannot be won overnight; it will take decades if not centuries. More real, determined, measures must come. It can be won only by following the trail of Bush administration's measures and strengthening the resolve further. Bush's message to his successor - that "with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great nation will never tire, never falter, and never fail" - is probably the least that will be needed.

Whether Bush's commendable, but insufficient, attempts at winning this war leads to sustained effective measures will determine the fate of this lasting civilisational clash of global expanse. We have to wait for decades to see the outcome. Bush is correct: only history can judge his legacy.

Harry Truman left office in 1953, to the relief of most Americans, with a miserable 32 per cent approval-rating while waging an unpopular war. Bush's departure has parallels to this. Yet in a decade, Truman was rated among nation's top ten presidents. A movie was made entitled, Give 'em Hell, Harry!; and Chicago group sang "America needs you, Harry Truman".

Truman's was a difficult, extraordinary, time in office; Bush's was worse. Bush leaves office in similar circumstances, too. Will Bush bounce back like Truman? It all remains to be seen.